Santorum Could Win Iowa

A big surge is being detected in polling in Iowa to Santorum, with Santorum outpolling Ron Paul (R.Pluto), who was just behind Romney, in the last two days of polling. Go here to read all about it. A win for Santorum in Iowa could be a game changer, as overnight he could become the conservative hope against a Romney nomination. That would be great, as Santorum is as pro-life as they come, recognizes the threat from the radical jihadists and has a realistic plan to cut government expenditure, the components of which are as follows:

Commit to cut $5 trillion of federal spending within 5 years.

Implement Strong America Now reform through Lean Six Sigma management process as a key engine for cutting government waste and improving efficiency.

Freeze spending levels for social programs for 5 years such as Medicaid, Housing, Education, Job Training, and Food Stamps, time limit restrictions, and block grant to the States like in Welfare Reform.

Repeal and Replace ObamaCare with market based healthcare innovation and competition to improve America’s and Americans health, control costs, improve quality and access, and to keep and create jobs which provide resources for healthcare.

Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution capping government spending at 18% of GDP so that Congress and the President will need to balance the budget like Governors are required to do.

Pass legislation to reform the Congressional Budget Process and support legislation to require Congress to pass constitutionally required spending bills on time or not get paid the next fiscal year.

Implement Medicare Reforms and Innovation proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan and speed up their implementation to control healthcare costs and improve quality.

Reform Social Security and place on a sustainable path by a combination of reforms such as addressing adjusting CPI, dependent benefits and disability income benefits reforms, moving back the retirement age for younger workers, means testing benefits, annual adjustments as needed, and dedicating Social Security payroll taxes to Social Security.

Implement reforms and cost savings of up to $100 billion in March 2011 GAO report requested by Senator Coburn listing 34 areas of duplication and waste.

Stop implementation of any remaining federal stimulus spending.

Freeze pay for non-defense related federal employees for four years, cut workforce by 10% with no compensatory increase in contract workforce, and phase out defined benefit plans for newer workers.

Eliminate all energy subsidies and most agriculture subsidies within four years.

Eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood and use half of the dollars to support adoption instead.

Cut EPA resources for job killing regulations and return focus to commonsense conservation and safe and clean air and water.

Cut in half the number of State Department USAID employees and US funding for United Nations programs.

Cut funding for National Labor Relations Board for decision preventing airplane factory in South Carolina.

Eliminating funding for United Nations’ agencies which oppose America’s interests and promote abortion and cut the US contribution to the UN in half.

Phase out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac within five years.

Sell unproductive and wasteful federal properties.

Transition Team will review all spending cut proposals and restructuring reforms of the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and the Simpson-Bowles Commission for additional savings.

Santorum will be very much of a longshot even if he wins Iowa. However, Romney is so very unpopular with most of the Republican base that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Santorum could make this a real contest and have a slight chance to take the nomination.

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

“No member of Congress shall receive any salary for service in Congress during a fiscal year in which the expenditures of the Federal government shall exceed revenue received by the Federal government. All citizens of the United States shall have standing to bring suit in any Federal District Court seeking to enforce the terms of this Amendment. The terms of this Amendment shall not apply in a fiscal year if the members of Congress vote by at least a three-quarters majority of the members of Congress in each chamber to have the amendment not apply in that fiscal year.”

“Could this be the political version of a contemporary “Hail Mary” Pass?”

It would be a pretty big upset Karl, but the pieces do seem to be falling into place for Santorum in Iowa. The man has worked harder and longer than any of the other candidates in Iowa and Iowans traditionally appreciate that.

With that amendment, Congress would just borrow the balance. If you say that debt can’t count as revenue, they’d find another way to structure debt as revenue or off-load expenditures. One way is to spin off unprofitable operations into GSE’s which can issue their own debt. It’d be off the government’s balance sheets yet enjoy the implicit guarantee of government.

I think any balanced budget amendment has to incorporate an independent determination of whether it has balanced the budget. Maybe an executive office or even voters. Also, most congressmen are very well off. Most Senators are millionaires. I don’t think cutting their pay is enough of an incentive. I like Warren Buffett’s idea. Make them ineligible for reelection.

At any rate, Santorum will finish in the top 3 in Iowa. Supporters should hope that Newt, Perry, and Bachmann drop out though I doubt they will before South Carolina. Supporters should also hope that regardless of where Santorum finishes in Iowa, Romney doesn’t win Iowa. The second best outcome after an outright Santorum win, is to make Iowa irrelevant with a Paul win.

Oh I am sure that the Congress Critters would wish to engage in the type of mendacious conduct that you mention RR, which is why I included the provision about all American citizens having standing to litigate the amendment. Such litigation would give massive publicity to any underhanded flim flam engaged in by Congress to get around the plain words of the Amendment, with the added bonus that the courts might well rule against such Congressional attempts. Bad publicity and no salary would be powerful incentives to Congress to balance the budget.

He can put more intelligence into it than that. What are you cutting and why?

Freeze defense spending levels for 5 years and reject automatic cuts.

Why does he not have an ally with a more granular knowledge of military spending than implied with that?

Freeze spending levels for social programs for 5 years such as Medicaid, Housing, Education, Job Training, and Food Stamps, time limit restrictions, and block grant to the States like in Welfare Reform.

Op. cit.

Repeal and Replace ObamaCare with market based healthcare innovation and competition to improve America’s and Americans health, control costs, improve quality and access, and to keep and create jobs which provide resources for healthcare.

And, while we are at it, pursue cheap air fares via the suspension of gravity.

Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution capping government spending at 18% of GDP so that Congress and the President will need to balance the budget like Governors are required to do.

I suspect you are right that balanced budget provisions in state constitutions and local charters are why publicly held municipal debt as a ratio of direct expenditure is less than a third that of publicly-held federal debt. Our recent experience suggests that fiscal stimulus has low multipliers in most circumstances, so constraints on federal expenditure during recessions are (one suspects) not nearly so injurious to production as a certain class of macroeconomist has claimed. That having been said, consider that military expenditure over the period running from 1929 to 2008 was a mean of 7.8% of gross domestic product. That can be segregated into 5.8% for military preparedness and 2.0% for fighting wars. Currently, expenditure on veterans’ benefits runs to about 3/4 of expenditure on our contemporary shooting wars. Can we thus suppose a long term stream of 1.5% on veterans benefits? The civilian espionage services, overseas development and relief projects, and the diplomatic corps currently chew up about 0.6% of domestic product. That sums to about 10% of domestic product. For the most part, that expenditure is a function of the world in which we have lived. I know the Ron Paul bots fancy we could have lived in some other world, but you and I do not take that seriously and neither does Sen. Paul.

Beyond that consider the following:

–Interest on the public debt. If I am not mistaken, outstanding federal debt in 1928 amounted to about 25-30% of domestic product. Apply an interest rate of 4.4% to that and you get about 1.2% of domestic product in service charges.

–Federal police, prisons, tax collection and enforcement, courts, and civil regulatory enforcement. That currently chews up about 0.75% of domestic product, with the last amounting to less than $20 bn at this time.

Which is to say that as far as I can see, Sen. Santorum’s plan is to spend around 5% of domestic product on subventions to old-age pensions, medical care, unemployment compensation, and long-term care. Somehow I think getting from here to there will take a loooong time.

Pass legislation to reform the Congressional Budget Process and support legislation to require Congress to pass constitutionally required spending bills on time or not get paid the next fiscal year.

No objections.

Implement Medicare Reforms and Innovation proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan and speed up their implementation to control healthcare costs and improve quality.

Reform Social Security and place on a sustainable path by a combination of reforms such as addressing adjusting CPI, dependent benefits and disability income benefits reforms, moving back the retirement age for younger workers, means testing benefits, annual adjustments as needed, and dedicating Social Security payroll taxes to Social Security.

Maybe not optimal, but not objectionable. These would take several business cycles to pay off appreciably.

Implement reforms and cost savings of up to $100 billion in March 2011 GAO report requested by Senator Coburn listing 34 areas of duplication and waste.

Caveat lector.

Stop implementation of any remaining federal stimulus spending.

Why not specify the agencies and programs to cut?

Freeze pay for non-defense related federal employees for four years, cut workforce by 10% with no compensatory increase in contract workforce, and phase out defined benefit plans for newer workers.

First and the third are advisable. Compensation for federal employees should gradually return to Earth. (IIRC, compensation amounts to about 12% of federal expenditure, but I may be way off). Please to not fire Dale Price’s brother (Customs and Border Protection) or mine (Veterans’ Health Administration).

Eliminate all energy subsidies and most agriculture subsidies within four years.

Good. Why not get higher education, real estate, and miscellanous social work philanthropies off the teat while we are at it?

Eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood and use half of the dollars to support adoption instead.

A small program, but the principle is good. Placements are properly devolved to county governments, however.

Cut EPA resources for job killing regulations and return focus to commonsense conservation and safe and clean air and water.

About 10% of the EPA’s budget is devoted to generation and enforcement of regulations or around $1.1 bn, give or take. About 45% is devoted to ‘Grants, subsidies, and contributions’.

Cut in half the number of State Department USAID employees and US funding for United Nations programs.

IIRC, the Agency for International Development is an independent agency, not a component of the state department, and overseas development and relief expenditures are around $27 bn, give or take. There are likely some badly structured programs therein, but he does not need to use a meat axe. I suspect we could profitably withdraw from about half of the UN’s specialized agency, though that will not save much.

Why not redesign the regulatory architecture and fund it properly? Regulations may have ill effects when enforced, but enforcement budgets are typically small. You have about nine agencies involved in regulating the financial sector. I think the largest in the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has an operating budget of about $1 bn.

Eliminate funding for implementation of ObamaCare.

Why not replace the program?

Cut funding for National Labor Relations Board for decision preventing airplane factory in South Carolina.

Why not recast the federal labor code?

Eliminating funding for United Nations’ agencies which oppose America’s interests and promote abortion and cut the US contribution to the UN in half.

Repetitive, but OK.

Phase out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac within five years.

OK. What are the details? Are you going to sell off the loan portfolios. Who will be responsible for honoring the trillions of dollars of securities they have issued?

Sell unproductive and wasteful federal properties.

That’s not the problem. The main problem is that we are maintaining huge inventories of commercial grazing and timber land which are quite productive.

Transition Team will review all spending cut proposals and restructuring reforms of the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and the Simpson-Bowles Commission for additional savings.

I agree with you Art that objections can be made to various aspects of Santorum’s plan. What impresses me is that he has a plan with some specificity at all. Most candidates merely say they will elimate the “Department of Waste, Fraud and Abuse” and leave it at that.

Santorum is not as pro-life as they come. Why did he support Arlen Spector against Toomey? Romney is the best candidate to advance our Church’s pro life cause because he can win. I believe like Ronald Reagan he is now true pro life. A Santorum win in Iowa only helps Obama (He lost in Pa by 17% against Casey), he doesn’t have the money to compete anywhere. He’s not even on the ballot in Virginia. I urge all Catholics to unite around Romney so we can end this by Florida and set sites on Barack Obama. Mitt Romney should take a Catholic for VP Marco Rubio!! Marco would destroy Biden in a debate.

Santorum supported Specter in 2004 because he squeezed a pledge from Spector that he would support any of Bush’s Supreme Court nominees, which ended up including Justices Roberts and Alito. Specter had opposed Bork in 1987, but he did support Roberts and Alito. Santorum made the calculation that Specter could win in 2004 in the general election and Toomey couldn’t. I tend to agree with that calculation. Toomey won a Senate seat in 2010 in the best election year for Republicans since the Twenties, but it was still close, with Toomey winning with 51% of the vote against a lacklustre Democrat, Joe Sestak.

The second best outcome after an outright Santorum win, is to make Iowa irrelevant with a Paul win.

It must be a brand new year because I totally agree with RR. The best thing that could happen is Paul wins while Rick – my preference is Perry – comes in third. Iowa is discredited, but an actually likeable (to me anyway) candidate gains momentum.

“A would destroy B in a debate!” is something we hear every 4 years and it never happens. The only things that stick out in people’s minds are the clever rehearsed one-liners that anyone can deliver.

I wonder… is there a single person who won’t support Santorum because of his support for Specter? Seems like a waste of breath for opponents to bring it up. I’d stick to electability. If anybody but Romney or Huntsman wins the nomination, Obama is reelected. There’s no way around it.

RR I’ve always liked Rick Santorum. I am just saying he is not as “pro life as they come.” I absolutely agree about electability. Romney’s raised over $20 million in the 4th quarter. He is the only candidate that will be able to respond to inevitable relentless Obama attacks. A shame if he has to waste valuable resources in Florida for the primary. Also I don’t think Marco Rubio is an a or b. In my mind he is the most articulate voice for conservatism in America. A Romney Rubio ticket would be unstoppable.

*Paul, the Catholic League published an article on that Evangelical minister who supports Perry, and had attacked Romney’s Mormonism a couple months ago…They have documentation in it that the man is an anti-Catholic bigot.

How many Downs Syndrom children are dead because their parents couldn’t imagine having to care for a special needs child? Santorum’s is alive precisely because he and his wife had the faith and courage to trust God that it would be OK. Is there a better, more sure affirmation of his deep-rooted pro-life convictions than that? Is there another candidate with as good a credentials?

Touche g-veg- you are right. I just fervently want Obama to be defeated and Mitt Romney as I see it is the only candidate that can do it. I believe he will do what is right for pro-life. This election is truly a matter of life and death. I get discouraged talking to
Catholics who just won’t get behind Romney because of his Faith.

RR, at the risk of nit-picking, do you say so because Santorum says he didn’t have any hints, because he had hints and didn’t verify them, or is it your guess that he didn’t know?

Chris, It isn’t Romney’s faith that troubles me.

Part of what troubles me is that I feel like Romney is being shoved down my throat and I don’t like being bullied. I have yet to meet a Republican or a conservative who has said “I like Romney” or “Romney is my guy.” I hear a lot of “he’s the most electable” and “who else has the support to beat Obama.”

Why are we seriously considering someone we don’t like for office? I’m an Eagles fan and I really thought their 2011 season would be a winner. Given how bad my picks are in football, is it reasonable for me to cast a vote based upon my analysis of someone’s electability?

Setting my pride aside – for I concede that my reaction to having Romney shoved down my throat is prideful – what does Romney bring to the table? He doesn’t seem to have any economic plans to bring order to this mess, and he has no track record of supporting the things I favor like pro-life issues or freedom of conscience. He’s not a war or civic hero. I acknowledge that a decade holding political office shouldn’t disqualify one from becoming president but it shouldn’t the sole qualification for office either.

I’m willing to be convinced so please tell me, other than, “he’s going to beat Obama” why I should vote for Romney?

The right use of freedom, then, is central to the promotion of justice and peace, which require respect for oneself and others, including those whose way of being and living differs greatly from one’s own. This attitude engenders the elements without which peace and justice remain merely words without content: mutual trust, the capacity to hold constructive dialogue, the possibility of forgiveness, which one constantly wishes to receive but finds hard to bestow, mutual charity, compassion towards the weakest, as well as readiness to make sacrifices.

Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity.”8 We Christians believe that Christ is our true peace: in him, by his Cross, God has reconciled the world to himself and has broken down the walls of division that separated us from one another (cf. Eph 2:14-18); in him, there is but one family, reconciled in love.

Peace, however, is not merely a gift to be received: it is also a task to be undertaken. In order to be true peacemakers, we must educate ourselves in compassion, solidarity, working together, fraternity, in being active within the community and concerned to raise awareness about national and international issues and the importance of seeking adequate mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth, the promotion of growth, cooperation for development and conflict resolution. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God”, as Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:9).

Peace for all is the fruit of justice for all, and no one can shirk this essential task of promoting justice, according to one’s particular areas of competence and responsibility. To the young, who have such a strong attachment to ideals, I extend a particular invitation to be patient and persevering in seeking justice and peace, in cultivating the taste for what is just and true, even when it involves sacrifice and swimming against the tide.

– 2012 New Year’s Message – Pope Benedict XVI

“I would be saying to the Iranians, you either open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors, or we will degrade those facilities through air strikes.”

Why “frothy?” I don’t want to put words in your mouth so I’d like you to be clearer.

From where i sit, that Iran will likely acquire the nuclear arms in 2012 or 2013 is a legitimate concern and “what would you do about it if you were president” is a legitimate line of inquiry. Are you saying he is wrong? If so, why?

It is well and good to quote a pope and scripture and such. These sources should factor heavily in our analysis. They are not answers in and of themselves though unless they are directly on point and nothing you have said is. Frankly “what to do about Iran” is an incredibly complex issue that has frustrated Administration after Administration.

G-veg, I supported Mitt Romney in 2008 and support him wholeheartedly this election. I’m a lifelong Republican and Conservative (of course voted Reagan,Bush,Dole,Bush, McCain) and love Mitt Romney. I think he has been given a very bad rap. 1) Socially, Okay when he ran against Kennedy he said while he was personally pro-life he wouldn’t change state law. He than changed his view when embryonic research bill came to his desk. I believe that he is pro-life now. He was never for same sex marriage..ever. Look at his life and the family he has 5 children, 16 grandchildren. A wonderful wife. 2) National security, I’m a former Marine my son is going to Ranger School at Fort Benning in 2 weeks and I absolutely trust Romney as Commander and Chief. 3) Being an economic conservative, Romney is the only one with private sector experience. If we are not strong economically as a country it weakens everything else. I want America to be the land of opportunity not a welfare State. Mitt means business. I truly see alot of Reagan in Romney. I think the more you and the country see of Romney the more you will see Reagan. Romney can once again make us the shining city on the hill. At many a Knights of Columbus meeting I have talked to others that won’t look past his Mormonism. I keep hearing all the slogans, he’s for Obamacare, cap and trade, etc… All not true. I pray he beats Obama and leads us back to the America we know and love. A god loving land of opportunity.

I’m willing to be convinced so please tell me, other than, “he’s going to beat Obama” why I should vote for Romney?

There is no particular reason to vote for Romney bar a calculation under a cloud of uncertainty that having him in office is better than the named alternative.

Romney is not being ‘shoved down your throat’. It is just that

1. He is running;
2. He has a certain baseline of salesmanship and organizational skill; and
3. The Republican electorate is motivated by many things, not all of which motivate anyone who comments here. Romney is someone a great many and perhaps most are willing to put up with without too much dyspepsia.

You are asking her to consider alternatives as if she were making real decisions. You are interrupting her while she strikes attitudes. I think you are due to be accused of ‘consequentialism’, or some such.

G-Veg, Santorum said he found out after birth. I don’t know if he had hints before that.

“I’m willing to be convinced so please tell me, other than, “he’s going to beat Obama” why I should vote for Romney?”

Depends on what your objective is. Some people would rather see Santorum lose to Obama than Romney win. If your objective is to steer the country in a more conservative direction you first eliminate all the candidates whom you just can’t vote for either because you think he or she is unqualified or because your conscience won’t allow it. Then you eliminate the unelectable. For me, that leaves Romney and Huntsman. I tend to think Romney has the edge against Obama because Huntsman has proven himself to be a horrendous campaigner.

As for why Romney is a superior candidate, apart from electability, he has extensive executive experience, he understands business like no other, he’s highly intelligent, and he’s scandal-free.

Frankly, I don’t trust Romney or Santorum on foreign policy. Santorum and Huntsman are the only two candidates who clearly know their foreign policy but Santorum is excessively belligerent. As for Romney, I haven’t seen any evidence he’s any wiser than the briefings his campaign staff gives him. He reminds me of Obama on foreign policy. Bold statements that pass a smell test but no evidence that they have more than a superficial understanding. I just hope Romney appoints a capable Secretary of State.

Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. Romney is a transparent phony, a synthetic human who has held a leadership position in what is widely regarded as mind controlling Cult, similar to Scientology. Consider that if Mormon Mitt picks Scientologist Tom Cruise as his running mate they may have to convert Air Force One from an airplane into a spaceship for their intergalactic travels. There are many Americans in recovery from the LDS Mormon Cult. Putting one of their leaders, a hollow man and soul less shape-shifter in the White House makes little sense. At the end of the day, replacing Obama with Romney is a pyrrhic victory at best. Winning with Mitt is losing. As an American Catholic, I would not under any circumstances want a Mormon as my President. Mormonism is a Cult and scam founded on the fraud and deception of a convicted con-artist. Romney has in effect served as a leader of what amounts to a spiritual Ponzi Scheme.

I’ve known a few Mormons over the years and I find nothing in their culture to support your allegations. Those that I’ve met are sober, charitable, and hard working.

Sure, I find the origins of their faith to be amusing. I find multi-armed goddesses from India to be amusing too. I know that the mountains aren’t sleeping giants and that the pyramids don’t conduct forces of the universe. However, while other faiths may strike me as bizarre, believing wrongly rarely strikes me as a disqualifier for elected office.

If all you have against Romney is ignorant prejudice against Mormons, perhaps he is worth a look after all.

I don’t know why I can’t get on board with Santorum. I’d vote for him in the general, but right now I prefer someone with at least a modicum of executive experience. Which leaves me with only a few alternatives. I know he’s not particularly viable at the moment, but I think Huntsman is a solid choice. A bit of a klutz as a campaigner, but a good option overall.

“I believe that he is pro-life now…Look at his life and the family he has 5 children, 16 grandchildren.”

Ah, if only we could get Nancy Pelosi, who has a family track record similar to Romney’s (5 children and 8 grandchildren), to represent a district other than ultra-liberal San Francisco — which, by the way, is literally a shining city on a hill, for those keeping score. Presumably, she, too, would choose to flip-flop her way into higher office. Then, we could all reassure ourselves about how deep down in her heart she was a pro-lifer all along.

I mean, what’s a few principles here and there when it comes to getting elected? Shining city on a hill, here we come!